U.S. geneticists say a second code hiding within DNA changes how scientists read its instructions and interpret mutations to make sense of health and disease.

Since the genetic code was deciphered in the 1960s, scientists have assumed it was used exclusively to write information about proteins, but University of Washington scientists say they've discovered genomes use the genetic code to write two separate "languages."

One, long understood, describes how proteins are made, while the other instructs the cell on how genes are controlled. One language is written on top of the other, which is why the second language remained hidden for so long, a university release said Thursday.

"For over 40 years we have assumed that DNA changes affecting the genetic code solely impact how proteins are made," UW genome sciences Professor John Stamatoyannopoulos said. "Now we know that this basic assumption about reading the human genome missed half of the picture. These new findings highlight that DNA is an incredibly powerful information storage device, which nature has fully exploited in unexpected ways."

Parts of the genetic code have two meanings, one related to protein sequence, and one related to gene control, the researchers said, and both apparently evolved in concert with each other....

Remember that the theory of evolution only has 1) random selection and 2) mutation to explain existing complexity and invention (or future refinement).

It is not that DNA is getting more complex, it is how certain science has been at every step of discovery that they could finally fully understand it. The more complex that this explanation gets, the further it takes us from the supposition that the DNA-based architecture was itself the product of random selection and mutation.

The very mechanism of random selection and mutation, the DNA architecture, now becomes evolution’s own bete noire. The means by which evolution proposes to create new complexity is being shown instead as the means that new complexity cannot arise through random selection or mutation.

The very mechanism of random selection and mutation, the DNA architecture, now becomes evolutions own bete noire. The means by which evolution proposes to create new complexity is being shown instead as the means that new complexity cannot arise through random selection or mutation.

It could well turn out to be that it isn't "random" at all, but that won't disprove evolution.

How do they explain the origin of information? and now how will they explain it again?

“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: .. “ Romans 1:20

The bible kindly inserts a perfect description of the r dawkins, n chomsky, b russell devotees in between with verses 1:21-24

“Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.” Romans 1:25

Evolutionists are left groveling in randomness in the only mechanism they have to explain DNA architecture. Sadly for them they have created a tautology: they believe that randomness is the only way to explain DNA architecture; DNA architecture is more complex than anyone can fully explain or even figure out in 40 years; therefore it must have been randomness that devised this; but there is not enough time in the life of the universe to provide even an improbable number of interaction opportunities to make this possible; but the only way to explain it is randomness, so this must prove that randomness was the creator of DNA architecture!

QED.

But one of the deans of modern evolutionary science, Richard Dawkins, admitted on camera that randomness was not the origins of DNA architecture. He said that intelligent aliens seeded life on earth. In a way he is right, but he quickly careens away from the compelling issue, the elephant in the room.

Evolution was devised to explain a creation without a Creator. Richard Dawkins admits to a creator, it is just a creator from some other planet. The Creator that Evolutionists are desperate to deny is the Creator God who will tell them things they don’t want to hear and judge them for their actions in their personal life that they do not want to acknowledge. If they can only prove that God doesn’t exist, that God cannot make demands on them, or judge them for their sins. And that is why people cling to evolution even as scientific research takes them closer to the Truth That Must Not Be Acknowledged.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.